I confess i've no idea who Bernie Sanders is, wasn't he the chap who makes the fried chicken?

Hitting the compare answers button opens with our agreeing on much stricter gun control and decriminalising various drugs.

42)
Message boards :
Politics :
Monarchy v Republic
(Message 1724230)
Posted 10 Sep 2015 by The Simonator
Post:
Various estimates put the cost of the Monarchy to the UK at around the 50p/person mark.
In the grand scheme of taxes, that really doesn't register.
Having a presidency instead (which many republicans advocate) would cost far more, in security at least. The royal family don't need huge amounts of security because the public are at worst ambivalent to them, whereas a portion of the populus would develop a hatred for a president.

Case in point, i met Princess Anne a few years ago, she presented me with my Queen's Scout award, a vicarious experience for her i expect.
At the (public) ceremony and subsequent (semi-private) dinner she had two bodyguards present, and left in a single car (Jaguar XJ12, memory serves). No police escort, bullet proof screens, helicopters, or anything else that one might expect a president to require.

The comments were along the lines that women are nuisance in labs because they keep falling in love and cry when they are criticised (which does make me wonder how he talks to people if it makes them cry). I'd say that was pretty undermining and offensive to female scientists.

Doesn't take much, there are a few in my lab who burst into tears at the slightest provocation.
That's not sexist, it's a fact. They're the exception rather than the majority, but as it happens, we're exactly gender balanced at the moment (19 of each), and i've yet to see any of the men crying.
People need to be more thick-skinned.

..and the GollyWog was always considered offensive by those it was mocking.

The original golliwog character (from 1895, The Adventures of Two Dutch Dolls and a Golliwogg) was a friendly and kind character, it wasn't until 1983 that the Greater London Council decided it was offensive.

From many of these incidents on this thread all show one thing in common...

...failure to use an old technological standard...

...the Mk 1 Eyeball.

On a few of the country lanes round here where they meet the main road there are fitted some concrete barriers which are about seven feet apart, they don't inhibit cars and pickups but lorries are physically unable to get onto the lane, seems to work quite well.

Would you take the same stance if these scientists were making racist jokes or wearing shirts with racist caricatures such as a GollyWog while making an important global announcement?

Depends on what exactly they said.
Obviously i can't respond to such generalised questions in any meaningful way.
If it was something like; "my lab has quite a few Arabic students, it can get hard to concentrate with them all shouting at each other", than that's low level and doesn't really merit a response.
Were it more like; "there's too many black people in here they make me sick to look at them", then that's more serious and warrants some action.
The difference is clear, the second statement is actively offensive, the first is merely one that someone might take offence to, which is not the same thing.
If a statement is not intended in a malicious way, then one should consider one's position carefully before kicking up too big a fuss about it.

As for the GollyWog issue, considering them offensive is a recent phenomenon. Should i have the right to clamour for a ban on leprechauns because they have red hair?

So you really think this guy should be in a position of authority over women with this attitude?

I think everyone concerned needs to damn well calm down and look at this with a cool head.
1. It was intended as a joke.
2. Some didn't take it that way.
3. He apologised.
That should be the end of it. Those who shout for his resignation and public lynching are just doing it out of misguided self-righteousness because it makes them feel important.
They belong in the same camp as Mary Whitehouse, "i don't like this, it must be banned!".
If they want to be taken seriously then this isn't the way to go about it.
For reference, see also shirtgate.

If you hear a White Person person say "you have to understand": That is an Anti-Black Racist, and add that persons name to your 'Racist List'.

If you hear a White Person say "Blacks cannot 'Do It', unless they have the approval, liking and assistance, from their former/present oppressors: That is an Anti-Black Racist, and add that persons name to your Racist List.

The only difference between the Racist Right, and The Racist Left: Is the Left's unwillingness (inability?) to acknowledge their Disgusting Racism.

Interestingly: The Marxist, and Anti-White Racist, W.E.B. DuBoise solutions: Were probably closer to solving the foundations of Black Success, than Dr. George Washington Carver.

The N.A.A.C.P. chose Carver's 'solutions'.

You have to understand the Krebs cycle, it oxidises fat and carbohydrate into energy.

And final post i take it the NRA will be against changing the censorship rules right as that will infringe on the constitution .

Nope there not part of the problem are there . They just oppose every measure to try a bring a stop to the deaths or sabbotage it .

well agree to police checks so long as it's only in the state your applying in .

Of course they know that won't work . Live in another state get arrested for domestic voilence and then go across the border where you don't have a record get your licence and buy your weapons then take them back to your home state .

Then they can say LOOK GUN CONTROL DOESN"T WORK WE ALREADY HAVE POLICE CHECKS AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED

Like i said come on suckers buy them guns make me some money .

Doesn't sound like a very United States of America. Surely it's not beyond the wit of government to establish a national register for that purpose.

The problem with guns is that you don't have to be a particularly good shot to hurt someone at close range. A child can kill someone using a gun.

I would never have one in my home. Never.

Very true. Especially since so much 'instruction' about how to use one is plastered across the television and places like film posters.

I do have one in the house, a .22LR rifle (for which i have a license of course) and it's kept in a locked strongbox in the back of a cupboard with the ammunition in a separate safe in a different room, as per the regs.

The idea of leaving such a thing just lying about in a drawer horrifies me.